Sorry, I don't understand the rest of your post. I can figure it
out,
but it would be faster if you'd annotate the code rather than refer to
"the first (second ...) result".

No, I don’t think so. The bad design makes it basically difficult to
understand in detail. There’s no way that I can see to explain it
succinctly. Code samples (and my code was annotated, at least its results
were) are about as good as it gets.
--
‘Liston operated so fast that he once accidentally amputated an assistant’s
fingers along with a patient’s leg, […] The patient and the assistant both
died of sepsis, and a spectator reportedly died of shock, resulting in the
only known procedure with a 300% mortality.’ (Atul Gawande, NEJM, 2012)
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Patches mailing list
XEmacs-Patches(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-patches